On Wednesday, October 12, 2022, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on the submitted “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulated by and between the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent Indianapolis attorney Charles Daugherty relating to charges of professional misconduct.
The case titled ‘In the Matter of Charles Daugherty’, was brought by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, Case # 22S-DI-216.
The charges cite Daugherty’s violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.4(d) of the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules, which state:
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law or assistance limited under Rule 1.2(c).
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
According to the filing:
” In 2019, “Company” hired Respondent to represent it in a lawsuit, and Respondent filed his appearance. Over a three-month period in late 2021, Respondent failed to appear at two status conferences and two show cause hearings, the latter of which were scheduled for him to explain his previous absences. Respondent never provided Company any reason for his absence.AfterRespondent’s appearance was withdrawn and Company hired a new attorney, Company requested the case file from Respondent, but he failed to provide it. Respondent admits he didn’t properly communicate with Company or opposing counsel during the relevant times .”
The parties agreed that Respondent violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules as charged.
The Supreme Court of Indiana, in its Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, after consideration of the submissions of the parties, approved the proposed discipline of 60 days suspension from the practice of law, beginning on the date of the Order, all stayed subject to completion of at least one year of probation with JLAP monitoring.
Any violation of probation shall result in the balance of Respondent’s suspension being actively served without automatic reinstatement.
The costs of the proceedings amounting to $257.53 were assessed against Respondent.
According to LinkedIn, Mr. Daugherty is currently an adjunct professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, where he also completed his Juris Doctor degree, graduating summa cum laude in 2011. He has practiced in Indianapolis, Indiana and he has been licensed in Indiana.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
